Downtown Real Estate

[Greenspace]

Canada Permanent Building:

Privacy Policy |More Info

10126 - 100 STREET NW Plan F Lots 31-32 - Major Development Permit​

External ID
535621349-002
Job Type
Major Development Permit
Description
To change the use from Restaurant to Office and to construct interior alterations
Applicant
PLAN IT PERMITS
Status
Intake Review
Class of Permit

Create Date
October 17, 2024
Approval Date

Location
10126 - 100 STREET NW Plan F Lots 31-32
Neighbourhood
DOWNTOWN

 

[David A]

Downtown needs per-door housing incentives, report authors argue

The authors of the new Downtown Investment Plan told the co-hosts of Episode 281 of Speaking Municipally that public investment is necessary to stimulate Edmonton's struggling downtown core, even though the requests are expensive and ambitious.

edmonton.taproot.news

Its not that it is so difficult or expensive to live downtown. You can even still buy a older condo with a view in a decent for $200,000 or less, which is way less than any other major city in Canada.

The problem is people are not that attracted to live downtown, so an even lower price will not help much. Why are they not attracted - again the same problems we have talked about for the last several years: safety and perceptions around that, lack of retail and other amenities and lack of nearby jobs. A housing incentive will fix none of these problems and until they are fixed downtown will be a difficult sell to many.

 

[Greenspace]

^That is not what the per door incentive is for. It is for projects ready to go but can't make the numbers work due to cost of construction and poor rules by CMHC financing that prioritizes suburban projects over Downtown (that's another issue altogether) . All of these projects are purpose built rentals, not condos so not the same kind of risk around occupancy.

 

[David A]

^That is not what the per door incentive is for. It is for projects ready to go but can't make the numbers work due to cost of construction and poor rules by CMHC financing that prioritizes suburban projects over Downtown (that's another issue altogether) . All of these projects are purpose built rentals, not condos so not the same kind of risk around occupancy.

The desirability of living in downtown is a general issue related to renters as well as condo owners. The numbers probably work better if there is more demand, which would then mean less risk of vacancy and the possibility of more rent.

 

[thommyjo]

The desirability of living in downtown is a general issue related to renters as well as condo owners. The numbers probably work better if there is more demand, which would then mean less risk of vacancy and the possibility of more rent.

I don’t think that’s really an issue. Our downtown vacancy for rentals isn’t that high. It’s the financing side with lenders and a pet door helps to make the math work for new projects to break ground. Think The Shift Towers.

 

[Greenspace]

We've discussed this before, I gave a list of probable projects to go ahead tomorrow if there was an incentive. There is a desirability/safety consideration for sure but the developers I talk to that isn't the issue. The issue is construction/financing. They already own the land and want to do something.

 

[Kosy123]

Yup. Vacancy rates have dropped immensely downtown, even from the CMHC's own numbers. It's why the interest rate drops are more important than anything else right now if we're not getting an incentive anytime soon.

 

[David A]

Yup. Vacancy rates have dropped immensely downtown, even from the CMHC's own numbers. It's why the interest rate drops are more important than anything else right now if we're not getting an incentive anytime soon.

I agree vacancy rates have come down and probably waiting for interest rates to decline is a very important factor now. If so, we don't need an incentive for what could happen in six months anyways.

However, I do feel the next to interest rates, those who would pursue such projects also need to be confident the demand is there and I don't think they are confident enough now for other reasons already mentioned.

 

[bodsbods9090]

We've discussed this before, I gave a list of probable projects to go ahead tomorrow if there was an incentive. There is a desirability/safety consideration for sure but the developers I talk to that isn't the issue. The issue is construction/financing. They already own the land and want to do something.

Possible projects that would go ahead with this incentive (Downtown or CRL boundaries)

- The Parks tower 2
- Falcon tower 2
- Phipps McKinnon conversion
- The Shift 2 towers
- Milner Building conversion?

These are the projects Greenspace had mentioned.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Downtown needs per-door housing incentives, report authors argue

The authors of the new Downtown Investment Plan told the co-hosts of Episode 281 of Speaking Municipally that public investment is necessary to stimulate Edmonton's struggling downtown core, even though the requests are expensive and ambitious.

edmonton.taproot.news

Downtown housing is still pretty undervalued, IMO. Incentivizing more businesses in the retail spaces of mixed-use buildings is what downtown needs.

 

[Kosy123]

I agree vacancy rates have come down and probably waiting for interest rates to decline is a very important factor now. If so, we don't need an incentive for what could happen in six months anyways.

However, I do feel the next to interest rates, those who would pursue such projects also need to be confident the demand is there and I don't think they are confident enough now for other reasons already mentioned.

I don't think demand is going to go away anytime soon in all honesty. Unless we get another pandemic that shuts down the core, I think there's enough factors (pop growth, increasing student population, Ice District things) that there's a decent base growth/demand for rentals in the core.

I do agree with you that more office jobs and retail options (this thing is frustrating for me as someone who spends a lot of time in the core) need to happen for sustained long term growth though.

 

[Greenspace]

Possible projects that would go ahead with this incentive (Downtown or CRL boundaries)

- The Parks tower 2
- Falcon tower 2
- Phipps McKinnon conversion
- The Shift 2 towers
- Milner Building conversion?

These are the projects Greenspace had mentioned.

Phipps McKinnon can be taken off there. Probably could add Westrich 106 Street or ICE District towers to that list.

 

[Platinum107]

This store has been here a long time, so I wonder if the owner is retiring. But Manulife and its upscale focus has been particularly hard hit and has had trouble adapting to the changing downtown environment.

Interestingly, there actually was more thriving retail here a couple decades ago, before more residential was added in the core or nearby, so I don't think that is real problem or adding more residential is a magic solution.

^I was going to post this under the Manulife renos thread, but I'll but it here.

I've always wondered about this. Why has the retail and overall life of downtown gone down so gradually over the last few decades? Is it genuinely just that most people live far away from downtown and never visit due to distance and lack of transit? Will there be a rebound now that there has been a substantial growth of residential?

 

[MisterSartorial]

Possible projects that would go ahead with this incentive (Downtown or CRL boundaries)

- The Parks tower 2
- Falcon tower 2
- Phipps McKinnon conversion
- The Shift 2 towers
- Milner Building conversion?

These are the projects Greenspace had mentioned.

Just FYI Phipps McKinnon conversion is already well underway. If you walk by you can see that the floors they're converting have already been fully gutted down to the concrete.

 

[Gus Haynes]

^And all done without a dime of taxpayer dollars!